When Ukraine Was Invaded 700 Years Ago… Another Superpower Was in Decline

 

February 28, 2022 In the autumn of 1362, on the banks of Syniukha River in eastern Europe, General Algirdas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was about to do something that would have been unthinkable only a few decades before. He was going to invade Ukraine and take over the Principality of Kiev. Kiev at the time was a client state of the Mongolian Empire which had long been the world’s dominant superpower. But Mongolia was in obvious decline. In the early 1200s under Genghis Khan, everyone in the known world was terrified of the Mongols. No one would have dared to antagonize them. Genghis’s successors, including his grandson Kublai Khan, continued to wield this immense power into the early 1300s, a century after the empire’s formation. But then things started to change. Mongolians became extremely divided; they no longer had a common sense of unity, and bitter disputes broke out over who was Mongolia’s rightful leader. Furthermore, Mongolia’s legendary tolerance began to fade. The Empire under Genghis had once been a place where all faiths, belief systems, and ideologies could flourish. But by the early 1300s, Mongolians began choosing sides; some parts of the empire became Muslim, others Buddhist. Others adopted Chinese culture and traditions. And some factions became extremely intolerant of the others. Mongolia also suffered other serious issues. The Bubonic Plague, which may have originated from within the Mongolian Empire before making its way to Europe, devastated trade and commerce. Plus, inflation was raging in the eastern part of the empire, thanks to the astonishing amount of paper money that the Mongolian treasury had been printing. Inflation was so bad, in fact, that even the peasants were starting to revolt. Mongolia’s problems compounded. And by the mid-1300s, rising powers like Lithuania were no longer intimidated. That’s why Algirdas led a force of 25,000 men into Ukraine in 1362; he wanted to conquer Kiev, essentially stealing one of Mongolia’s vassal states. The Mongols tried to stop him. They made threats and sent harsh warnings. They even tried to put up a small fight. But in the end, Lithuanian forces decisively pushed into Ukraine and took Kiev. More importantly, they made the Mongols look weak. This was an important moment in history; most people already noticed Mongolia’s decline — the infighting, the intolerance, the inflation. But it took the Lithuanians invading Mongolia’s vassal state of Kiev — something that would have been unthinkable only a few decades prior — for the world to finally realize that the Mongolian Empire was no longer the dominant superpower. History is full of similar watershed moments where it becomes obvious that a former superpower has declined. The Suez Crisis in 1956 is another great example; the United Kingdom, formerly the world’s dominant superpower, invaded Egypt. Yet almost immediately the United States (the rising superpower) threatened the UK with financial sanctions if they did not cease the operation and withdraw from Egypt. Britain complied and pulled their forces out, marking the end of their dominance in the world… and the beginning of US dominance. I’ve written extensively about the many, obvious signs that US dominance is waning. Last year’s disgraceful, humiliating retreat from Afghanistan was one such sign. Another sign is the woke fanaticism that has infected the US intelligence and defense community, where many policymakers seem to prioritize diversity and inclusion over national security. But the most recent sign is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine last week. This would have never happened two decades ago; he would have been too afraid of America’s wrath. Yet today, Putin feels emboldened. The Brandon Administration spent months threatening Putin, hoping to scare him into backing off. But like the Grand Duchy of Lithuania back in the 1360s, Putin sees the decline — the infighting, the intolerance, the inflation (not to mention weak leadership) — so he’s no longer intimidated… by either the US or NATO. It’s also notable that China is the most important voice in this conversation; Putin agreed to peace talks with Ukraine ONLY after Chinese President Xi Jinping urged Putin to do so on Friday. In other words, the US was powerless to prevent the invasion, while China may be instrumental in ending it. I take no pleasure in this conclusion; Putin is acting like a deranged lunatic, and it’s sad that the risk of provoking America is no longer a suitable deterrent. But facts are facts, and it’s important to remain objective. Future historians will undoubtedly opine about the end of America’s dominance, and precisely when it happened; they may point to the Afghanistan retreat, or the COVID-19 pandemic in which Faucist bureaucrats took over the nation. Perhaps they’ll point to the day that the US national debt hit $30 trillion. Or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Or they may point to some other event that hasn’t taken place yet. But it should be obvious that the decline is happening. And that’s reason enough to have a Plan B. Remember, a big part of having a Plan B is having the courage to use it… to look at circumstances and say, “OK, Plan B is now Plan A.” I know people in Ukraine who were still consumed with day-to-day trivialities as late as last Tuesday, the day before the invasion. One woman I know fretted about her expiring gym membership. Now she’s stuck in Kiev with a small child. These are not stupid people; they’re intelligent, educated individuals who assumed “There’s no way he’s going to invade.” And let’s be honest, most people around the world thought the same, and forgot the lessons of Covid-19: everything can change overnight. You can have the best Plan B in the world. But it won’t matter if you don’t execute. There are almost always warning signs. With Covid, we could see western European countries imposing lockdowns. With Ukraine, we could see 100,000+ troops massed on the border. With US dominance, we can see obvious indications of decline. We’re not talking about obscure risks; the signs are clear. It’s just a question of getting over denial and normalcy bias… because it’s better to be comfortable and early than even a second late. To your freedom,

Simon Black, Founder, SovereignMan.com

Read More

Dominant superpowers don’t accumulate $30 trillion in debt

 

February 7, 2022 The year 238 AD began with Maximinus I as Emperor of Rome-- a former peasant who had worked his way up through the ranks of the military before being chosen as Emperor by his troops. By August of that year, Maximinus was dead, and five other men had briefly held the title of Emperor. Only one (Gordian III) was still alive by the end of 238 AD. This is known in Roman history as the ‘Year of the Six Emperors’, and it was an obvious watershed moment in the decline of the empire. It’s not like Rome hadn’t seen plenty of turmoil before-- There had been full-blown civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great nearly three centuries prior in 49 BC. Caligula managed to engineer a major supply chain crisis during his reign in the early 1st century AD. Much of the city of Rome burned to the ground under Emperor Nero in 64 AD. Caracalla heavily debased the currency and caused widespread inflation in the early 200s. And more than a dozen emperors had been assassinated up to that point in Roman history. People were used to crisis and chaos. But the Year of the Six Emperors felt different. It was as if Romans suddenly realized they were no longer the dominant superpower. The next few decades, in fact, are known as the “Crisis of the Third Century”, with more than two dozen emperors seizing the throne in a power struggle, murdering their political enemies, and then being assassinated themselves. Some emperors, like Silbannacus, Quintillus, and Saloninus, literally sat on the throne for a matter of days before being killed. The government was extremely unstable, and notoriously corrupt. They rigged elections. They sent Praetorian guards to harass and intimidate their opponents. And they sewed social conflict so that Romans turned on one another. In the meantime, the Roman economy was collapsing. Inflation became so rampant that Diocletian infamously had to implement extreme price controls, and then threaten to kill anyone who didn’t follow them. They also lost control of their borders, as countless barbarian tribes poured into the empire and squatted on Roman lands. The barbarian migration eventually turned into full-blown invasions and military conflict, and the Roman military lost a number of major battles. In 251 AD, for example, Rome suffered a crushing defeat by the invading Goths at the Battle of Abritus. The Goths decimated three Roman legions, killed the emperor, and stole TONS of gold. Even the lowest peasant was able to figure it out: dominant superpowers don’t lose battles. They maintain secure borders. They have strong currencies. They don’t blow through six leaders in a single year. They aren’t in a constant state of social revolution. And they aren’t bankrupt. We could easily apply the same logic today. And this is especially true after last week’s watershed moment in which the US national debt reached $30 trillion for the first time. It’s hardly controversial to assert that dominate superpowers don’t accumulate $30 trillion in debt (which, by the way, is 25% larger than the entire US economy). But it’s not just the debt. It’s so much more. Dominant superpowers don’t surrender tens of billions of dollars of military equipment to their sworn enemy, and then fly away with local civilians clinging to the side of their aircraft. Dominant superpowers don’t abandon their own citizens abroad. Dominant superpowers don’t engineer historically high inflation… and then ignore it. Nor do they embrace socialism, i.e. the literal opposite of the capitalist economic system that created so much wealth and power to begin with. Dominant superpowers don’t send their government agents to harass innocent citizens, or tell parents they have no say in the education of their children. Dominant superpowers don’t suspend their Constitutions because of a virus. They don’t give people incentives to NOT work. They don’t constantly make it difficult for small businesses to succeed. Dominant superpowers don’t deliberately reduce their military’s physical fitness standards in the name of diversity and inclusion. They don’t prioritize “equity” over national security. And they certainly don’t fire experienced intelligence operatives because of individual medical decisions. Dominant superpowers don’t placate their adversaries and bow to their demands. They aren’t afraid to offend their rivals. Dominant superpowers don’t create incentives for countless people to illegally cross the border and go live under a bridge. And above all else, dominant superpowers are able to deal with challenges. Yes, there’s always been conflict and disagreement. But dominant superpowers have stable, effective governments who can do what is necessary to solve problems. And they have societies whose people can coexist peacefully without being at each others’ throats all the time. It might not be pleasant to think about, but these are all true statements about the United States. And like Rome, they are all obvious signs of decline. Simply put, the US is no longer the dominant superpower. This doesn’t mean the world is coming to an end, or that some horrible cataclysm is about to take place. But it should be reason enough to have a Plan B. To your freedom,

Simon Black, Founder, SovereignMan.com

Read More

The Imbecile King who put his foot on the gas pedal

 

January 3, 2022 Charles II was only three years old when he became the supreme ruler of the Spanish Empire in 1665. But anyone who took just one look at the child knew they were all doomed. Charles had come from a long line of prominent European nobles known as the Habsburgs-- a family so exclusive that they frequently married one another in order to keep their blood line ‘pure’. Genetic defects abounded at as result. Charles II inherited some of the worst of these genetic defects; his father and mother were uncle/niece. And his grandparents were first cousins. So it comes as no surprise that Charles II was deformed, spindly, weak, constantly sick, and partially paralyzed. He was also referred to by his contemporaries as the ‘imbecile king’ for his slow-witted stupidity. Spain had been the dominant European superpower only a century prior to Charles II. It had vast colonies all over the world, a terrifying army and navy, and unimaginable wealth. But history proves that an Empire’s wealth and power never last forever. And even well before Charles II took the throne, Spanish rulers were already running everything into the ground. One clear lesson from history is that empires tend to be extremely expensive… especially when you’re the dominant superpower, and all of your rivals are constantly waging war against you. Spain was no exception. Their empire was extremely expensive to administer, and they were routinely engaged in costly wars. The emperors were forced to borrow a lot of money to pay for these wars. And Spain’s debt became so vast that the government defaulted at least SEVEN TIMES between the mid 1500s and mid 1600s. Desperate to make ends meet, the government also hiked taxes to exorbitant levels, including imposing a 14% sales tax. (Somewhere the governor of California is taking notes…) The government also predictably began rapidly expanding the money supply and debasing its own currency… resulting in one of the worst long-term episodes of inflation in all of human history up to that point. Spain’s Emperors also began interfering heavily in trade and commerce; they passed rules granting special monopolies to favored businesses, essentially killing off competition, and they inserted extreme government bureaucracy into some of the most important industries like shipping and mining. It wasn’t long before economic and trade activity began to shrink as a result of these policies. Between 1600 and 1700, in fact, Spanish shipping volume from the New World had declined by an astonishing 75%. Part of this decline was because of emerging social trends. In the early 1400s and early 1500s, the seas were teeming with Spanish explorers-- Cortes, Pizarro, de Soto, Ponce de Leon, etc. These men were regarded as national heroes in Spain, and international trade was considered a highly respected industry. By the mid 1600s, however, trade, commerce, and production had all fallen out of favor. Traders and industrialists were viewed with suspicion instead of esteem. The economies in cities like Valencia, which had once been famous for its factories and high quality products, quickly decayed. And suddenly Spain found itself importing most of its goods and services from its chief rivals-- France, England, and the Netherlands. Meanwhile the Spanish Inquisition was busy killing off thousands of intellectuals… and condemning tens of thousands more to life imprisonment. Their crime? Expressing independent thought that differed from the official narrative. Spain’s message to the world was clear: freedom of thought had no place in the Empire. So anyone capable of innovation stayed as far away as possible. And as a final point, Spain had suffered a series of embarrassing military defeats from the late 1500s through the mid 1600s, including the Spanish Armada’s humiliating loss to the English in 1588. Suddenly the rest of Europe realized that Spain was not invincible. The Empire was bankrupt, economically weak, socially decayed. And its military had been embarrassed. Remember-- this was already the situation BEFORE 1665. And that’s when Charles II took the throne. In other words, a weak, mentally incompetent fool was put in charge of an Empire that was already in serious decline… and whose chief rivals were rising rapidly. You don’t need a PhD in European History to figure out how that movie ended: the situation became much worse under Charles II. And within a few decades, Spain would go on to lose a major war against its rivals that struck the final blow to its dominance. That’s when the torch was passed, and France became the dominant superpower. Eventually the UK surpassed France, then the United States surpassed the UK. This cycle has been taking place for more than 5,000 years. Empires rise and fall. Economies rise and fall. And no nation holds the top spot forever. It’s not hard to understand why. When an economy is on the rise, people are hungry. They work hard. They save money. They’re focused on the future. Governments run lean budgets and spend responsibly. They maintain a sound currency. Once an economy has reached its peak, however, priorities change. Hard work and saving are no longer prized social values. People become more focused on consuming in the present, rather than investing in the future. Debt levels skyrocket. Government spending balloons. Regulations soar. Prices rise. Little by little, a nation chips away at the very values and institutions that made them powerful to begin with. If fiscal responsibility has made the nation wealthy, they begin printing record sums of money, engineering inflation, and taking on mountains of debt. If capitalism has made the economy prosperous, they cheer socialism. If personal freedom and self-reliance have created a strong society, they embrace totalitarianism, intolerance, and censorship. Not to mention, there always seems to be some rival, rising power lurking, ready to take advantage of the situation… and some weak leadership like Charles II who hits the gas pedal on the way towards the precipice. This story is as old as human civilization. And while the exact circumstances today are different, the themes are very similar. To your freedom,

Simon Black, Founder, SovereignMan.com

Read More

Deterioration of the Rule of Law is a Sign of a Culture's Decline!

 Simon Black on the Rule of Law

In early 2007, the brand new District Attorney for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin gave an interview to a local newspaper spelling out his ‘progressive’ approach to crime. He told the reporter: "Is there going to be an individual I divert [i.e. release back onto the street] or I put into treatment program, who's going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It's guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach." (Actually his approach is invalidated by the data; rape, homicide, arson, aggravated assault, and other violent crime have risen dramatically in Milwaukee. His approach is clearly not working...) But last Sunday, one such criminal-- Darrell Brooks-- who benefited from this prosecutor’s legendary clemency, drove his SUV into a crowd of people, killing six… including an 8-year old child. Brooks is a classic repeat offender; he had just been arrested a few weeks prior for running over his ex. And his numerous felony convictions go back two decades. The only reason he was on the streets was because of this District Attorney’s outrageous progressive policies. One HUGE problem in the United States is how ambitious people see prosecutor jobs like District Attorney and Attorney General as stepping stones to higher political offices. Kamala Harris, for example, got her start as a prosecutor, first winning the office of San Francisco District Attorney back in 2003. She later became California Attorney General in 2010, then Senator in 2016. Jumping from prosecutor to politician is extremely common. But it creates bad incentives for ambitious prosecutors to abuse the system for their own political gain. We’ve seen this a lot lately-- prosecutors bringing up ridiculous, dubious charges in high profile cases simply to increase their national name recognition. Other prosecutors will use their offices to make noise about their ‘progressive’ approach to crime, in an effort to win broad support from the left. Or they’ll often NOT prosecute prominent individuals to gain political favor. This is extremely unethical. The criminal justice system is supposed to keep bad people off the streets. Clearly there are way too many laws criminalizing non-violent acts. And the system should allow ample room for discretion to give people a second chance. But not 20 years of second chances. People like Darrell Brooks are on the streets because prosecutors, oftentimes for personal and political gain, simply refuse to follow the law. I’ve written about this concept a lot lately-- the rapid deterioration of America’s ‘Rule of Law’. Rule of Law is an idea that goes back thousands of years to the days of Hammurabi’s Code. It suggests that you can’t simply change the law whenever you want. Clear rules should be applied and followed equally across society, without exception. A strong Rule of Law was once a major cornerstone of western civilization… right alongside capitalism, individual liberty, and a sense of community. Each of these is vanishing at an astonishing pace. And with respect to Rule of Law, we constantly see new examples where government officials will either ignore the rules, or simply invent new rules, to do whatever they want. Several months ago, for example, the CDC Director invented the authority to take control of the entire $10+ trillion US housing market. Obviously nothing under the Constitution or US federal law grants her that power. But she arbitrarily decided that housing fell within her jurisdiction… and hence she felt entitled to issue a moratorium on evictions. Last week the Federal Trade Commission (whose new chairwoman is a hardcore Marxist) announced they would “identify additional legal theories” to stop mergers in the energy sector. In other words, they don’t actually have the legal authority. So they’re just going invent some new legal concept that gives them the power to do whatever they want. Last week’s verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was another obvious example; Hunter Biden’s dad raged that he was “angry and concerned” after the jury decided Rittenhouse was NOT guilty. Yet when another jury delivered guilty verdicts against all three defendants in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, Biden proudly announced that “the guilty verdicts reflect our justice system doing its job.” It’s amazing that the President of the United States publicly opines on the health of the justice system based on whether the jurys’ verdicts meet with his personal approval. And this is an extraordinary testament to the declining Rule of Law in America. Not to be outdone, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Rittenhouse’s acquittal was a “gross miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent. . .” He also called for the US Department of Justice to “review” the case. It’s no longer OK for a jury to hear evidence and deliver a verdict. If that verdict doesn’t conform to what the woke mob wants, the government will ignore the law, legal tradition, and the entire system of justice, to demand the outcome that it wants. As a final example, several months ago workers at an Amazon facility in Alabama voted whether or not to organize and form a union. The vote made national news, because government officials all the way up to Hunter Biden’s dad were pleading with the workers to unionize. The workers, however, had different plans. And they voted by an overwhelming margin to NOT unionize. But yesterday afternoon the US National Labor Relations Board decided to invalidate that April vote. And they are now requiring the workers to hold a new election. If you say anything about an election being unfair or fraudulent, then you’re a conspiracy theorist who is a threat to democracy. Yet if the government doesn’t like the outcome of a union election, they’ll just invalidate the vote until they get the outcome they want. I cannot overstate the importance of this issue; strong nations have a strong Rule of Law. And history is full of examples, from Rome to medieval Venice to the Ottoman Empire, which show that a deteriorating rule of law is a leading indicator of a civilization in decline. To your freedom,

Simon Black, Founder, SovereignMan.com

Read More

They Still Do Not Understand Why People Do Not Trust the System

 

Simon Black at Sovereign Man

September 14, 2021 Bahia Beach, Puerto Rico If you’ve never heard of ‘Doug the Pug’, you’re apparently in the minority. Count me in that group too, because I had to Google him. Unsurprisingly, I found out that Doug the Pug… is a dog. He also has a massive social media following with a total audience of more than 13 million, and more than 10 billion video views. Most importantly, though, Doug the Pug is a member of an ultra-elite group that was exposed by the Wall Street Journal yesterday. According to the Journal’s investigation, Facebook grants special privileges to a small percentage (roughly 0.01%) of its users-- typically celebrities, politicians, athletes, and, yes, Doug the Pug. Through a special program that Facebook developed called ‘Xcheck’ (CrossCheck), these superusers are above the law. They are free to post whatever content they want, and they’re immune from the policy guidelines that constrict average users. Facebook’s algorithms have been increasingly rampaging across the site over the past few years, flagging countless posts as ‘hate speech’ or ‘misinformation’. At a certain point even the Declaration of Independence, and at least one of Mark Zuckberg’s own videos, were flagged for removal. And just recently Facebook’s algorithms removed content posted by the mother of a US Marine who was killed earlier this month in Afghanistan; her post was justifiably critical of Hunter Biden’s dad, and apparently Facebook considered this ‘hate speech’. Fortunately such rules do not apply to Doug the Pug. Now, as irritating as it may be, Facebook is free to enforce, or not enforce, whatever rules it likes, on whomever it likes. That’s their right. The issue at hand is that Facebook has LIED about this practice over and over again. They’ve told the entire world that they enforce their content policies equally, and that no one is above the law. But according to leaked documents that the Journal uncovered, Facebook executives admit “We are not actually doing what we say we do publicly. . .” They’ve lied to their users. They’ve lied to Congress. They’ve even lied to their own Oversight Board. Yet incredibly, these are the people who are able to control the flow of information. They get to decide in their sole discretion what you can see and what you can say. They essentially control what is true. The liars control the truth. Let that sink in for a moment. Obviously it’s not just Facebook either. Look at mainstream media-- entire volumes could be written highlighting their blatant bias, misreporting, deliberate omissions, cherry-picking facts, and outright lies. This is hardly a controversial assertion; late last year, for example, Project Veritas released recordings of CNN president Jeff Zucker effectively dictating the highly-biased narrative that he wanted his organization to report. This isn’t objective journalism. It’s disgraceful theater and activism masquerading as public good. It’s a lie. On top of this we obviously also have to constantly contend with political lies. Officials in the State of New York, for example, were found to have completely fabricated the death toll resulting from when Governor Cuomo ordered nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients into their facilities. They lied, plain and simple. And yet the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences saw it fit to award this person an Emmy for his extraordinary leadership. Then, of course, there’s Anthony Fauci-- a career bureaucrat who runs an organization (NIAID) which was established sixty years ago to “conduct and support basic and applied research. . .” Fauci runs a research group. That’s it. Yet somehow he has been appointed America’s Lord Protector, with near dictatorial authority to tell us how we are allowed to live our lives. He, too, has been caught lying multiple times. He knowingly lied about his opinion on masks early in the pandemic-- which he later admitted. He lied about not funding Gain of Function research in Wuhan. He admitted to deliberately fudging his predictions for herd immunity in order to “nudge” more people to get vaccinated. He cluelessly predicted that deaths in Texas and Florida would surge as a result of eliminating their mask mandates. And when he was proven wrong, he admitted to having no idea why the body count didn’t soar. He has completely made up ridiculous assertions, like saying “it just makes common sense” to wear two masks-- despite having zero scientific evidence to back up his assertion. The CDC then released the most ridiculous ‘study’ several weeks later to justify Fauci’s ‘common sense’ claim, in which an experiment conducted on mannequins somehow proved that double masking was a great idea and would help decrease the spread of Covid by “about 95%”. Sounds pretty scientific. In fact they published this ‘study’ in the most prestigious medical journal of all: Twitter. Honestly, how can anyone take these people seriously? It’s obvious their priority isn’t truth… or even people’s health. It’s making sure everyone thinks they’re right. One of Lord Protector Fauci’s latest pushes is for school districts across the country to require Covid-19 vaccinations. And in Fauci’s view, this is totally normal. After all, most school districts require all sorts of other vaccines before students can be admitted. Once again, this is only a partial truth. Yes, school districts often require their students to be vaccinated. But the vaccines on those lists were typically around for years, if not decades, before they were required. The Hepatitis A vaccine, for example, was developed in 1991. But it didn’t make the CDC’s recommended immunization list until 2006, 15 years later. The Hepatitis B vaccine was developed in the early 1960s, winning its creator the 1976 Nobel Prize in Medicine. Yet it wasn’t added to the CDC recommended immunization list until 1991. And even with polio, which was considered a terrible plague, several years passed between the vaccine’s development and the mass immunizations recommended by the government. So it’s clear that Fauci’s assertion doesn’t conform to reality. Time and time again these ‘experts’ and venerable institutions prove that they’re not telling the truth… or at least the whole truth. The media. The tech companies. The banks. The politicians. Yet, amazingly enough, they still demand to be taken seriously. Hunter Biden’s dad is screaming that his “patience is wearing thin!” Honestly it’s remarkable how they can’t understand why so many people don’t trust the system. To your freedom,

Simon Black, Founder, SovereignMan.com

Read More